Partnerships from Cannibals with Forks:

The Triple iottom line of 2 1st=CenturyBusiness

John Elkinjton

Editor’sNote: John Elkington’s new book, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st-
Century Business, has been hailed as “practical,compassionate and deeply informed, a brilliant
synthesis of his genius for cutting through the thicket of tough issues-in the world of business
and sustainability-and producing elegant solutions that can be applied today”(Paul Hawken).
We are pleased to have the opportunity to publish a selection from this award-winning book. In
this discussion of partnerships, Elkington explores how effective, long-term partnerships will be
crucialfor companies making the transition to sustainability and offers approaches and examples
of keen interest. Special thanks to Capstone Publishers, U.K.,for their gracious cooperation.

- _. ..
Sustainability can be a 2 + 2 = 5 (or even
50) game. To achieve outstanding triple
bottom line performance, new types of eco-
nomic, social, and environmental partner-
ship are needed. Long-standing enemies
must shift from mutual subversion to new
forms of symbiosis. The resulting partner-
ships will help each partner perform tradi-
tional tasks more efficiently, while provid-
ing a platform from which to reach towards
goals that none of the partners could hope
to achieve on their own.
Effective, long-term partnerships will
be crucial during the sustain ability tran-
sition. Some will be between the public
and private sectors, some between compa-
nies, and some between companies and
groups campaigning for a broad range of
triple bottom line objectives. The focus in
this article will largely be on environmen-
tal partnerships, but we are also seeing the
evolution of similar partnership ap-
proaches in such areas as Third World de-
velopment and human rights.
The idea of trying to develop partner-
ships, both inside and outside the com-
__
pany, may seem common sense, but old
perceptions and prejudices die hard. Po-
tential partners continue to feel profoundly
misunderstood by those they should be
seeking to influence and engage. “I just
wish I could give people a pill so that they
could see the world the way we see it,” the
chief environmental officer of a major cor-
poration once confided. “Forget it!” I re-
plied. But the comment was an interesting
window into at least one corporate soul.
Many business people-and many
campaigners-still see the clash between
companies and campaigners in terms of an
unending battle between the forces of good
and evil, of light and darkness. Right and
wrong, however, depend on where you are
standing and which way you are facing.
Consider the views of Jim-Bob Moffett, the
larger-than-life American chairman of
Freeport McMoRan-the company which
runs one of the world’s largest copper and
gold mines in the mountains of Irian Jaya.’
Freeport McMoRan and RTZ, which
owns a stake in the mine, found them-
selves plunged into the X-ray environment

CCC 1088-1913/98/0801037-15
0 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ENVIRONMENTALQUALITYMANAGEMENT / Autumn 1998 / 37
 I Revolution Focus
5 Partnerships
1 . ___ ._
when a group of hostages were seized by
members of the Free Papua Movement
(OPM), as part of its independence
struggle. The OPM see the mine, operated
virtually as an extra-territorial part of
America with the protection of the Indone-
sian military, as a symbol of the problems
they face. Worse, the local tribespeople-
in addition to having been driven off their
lands-complain that run-off from the
mine is polluting rivers and that the re-
moval of forest cover is affecting the local
climate. Paradoxically, the hostages in-
cluded students from Cambridge Univer-
sity who had been working with local
tribes to learn how they exploited nature
without destroying it.
The Freeport McMoRan response to
environmental challenges can only be de-
scribed as robust. The scale of the pollu-
tion, Jim-Bob Moffett retorted, “is equiva-
lent to me pissing in the Arafura Sea.” He
told The Times that he was involved in “a
new Cold War” with local and interna
tional campaigners. “This,” he said, “is not
a job for us, it’s a religion.” All of which
tends to make negotiation with the enemy,
let alone the development of longer term
partnerships, inconceivable.
MONKEY TRAPS
Such reactions bring to mind the old
“Monkey Trap” tale (Exhibit 1).Companies
like Freeport McMoRan would do well to
learn and understand it. The history of the
environmental revolution is full of ex-
amples of companies locking themselves
into various forms of monkey trap. In the
case of Freeport McMoRan and RTZ, their
corporate fists are locked in the earth by
the thought of the billion tonnes of copper
and gold ore to be won as giant mechani-
cal shovels chew away at the mountain
tops. And the nature of human beings and
38 / Autumn 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL [IUAUTY MANAGEMENT
Old paradigm ) New paradigm
Subversion ) Symbiosis
of corporations being what it is, the 21st
century will also produce abundant ex-
amples of the corporate monkey trap in
action. Some companies will escape
empty-handed, some will work out ways of
breaking the jar out of the earth, but more
than a few will also be hammered senseless
by their opponents.
WHY WORRY?: TOMORROWS CEOS ARE
GREEN
Another reason for business to worry
is that the environmental agenda is way up
the list of priorities ofthe emerging genera-
tions of university graduates. “Europe’s
graduates put care for the environment top
of their agendas,” according to The Euro-
p e a n Graduate Survey, which covered
16,000 final-year students in 56 universi-
ties, business, and engineering schools
across 14 countries3But, while 68 percent
said they were prepared to pay the price of
a better environment, only 38 percent
thought that the global picture would im-
prove. These young people are also switch-
ing on to the Internet in a big way: 61 per-
cent used it in this latest survey, compared
with just 37 percent ii year earlier.
For these, and many other, reasons, it
is clear that we now stand on the thresh-
old of a new era in the relationships be-
tween business and its many stakeholders,
including potential new recruits. We also
see, in the words of a recent book on green
activism in America, environmentalism at
the cros~roads.~ Faced with growing media
skepticism and a degree of political back-
lash, environmentalists have been rethink-
ing what they do and how they do it.
For business, the value of the multiple
perspectives introduced by stakeholder
dialogue processes has been demonstrated
time and again for companies. The priori-
ties and strategies emerging from such pro-
John Elkington
Exhibit 1. The Monkey Trap

A monkey comes into a village at night. He finds a hole in the ground and circles it warily, smelling food. His paw just

I barely fits into the opening, because the hole is actually a narrow-mouthed jug buried flush with the ground. He
manages to scoop up a handful of rice, but can‘t run off with the food-since his closed fist can’t be drawn back I

,
through the jar’s opening. Not wanting to lose the food, he screeches, but keeps his fist closed. Shortly, a villager
comes by with a rock or pole and kills the monkey, either as a pest or for food. * !
.. .
I
I

cesses turn out to be better-rooted in personality and high economic compe-

emerging realities, more credible with all
stakeholders, and, as a result, more robust.
Not that this approach has been trouble-
free: some of the information released by
Novo Nordisk to visiting stakeholders
turned up as part of a consumer campaign
against the company’s enzymes in Ger-
many, Austria, and Switzerland. But that,
the company believes, is part of the price
you pay to build the relationships which
are likely to be indispensable during the
sustainability transition.
There is no question that these changes
potentially represent a ‘‘lox”challenge for
environmentalists and the traditional style
of relationship they have developed with
business. But it is still far from clear how
many of today’s campaigning organiza-
tions will successfully make the transition
to the new ways of operating. Equally, the
changing conditions will create opportuni-
ties for totally new forms of campaigning,
pressure politics, and partnerships between
campaigners and like-minded corporations.
Indeed, these initiatives may well be devel-
oped from scratch by some of the students
covered in the European’s survey.
Meanwhile, earlier generations of
green activists are moving into the main-
stream. Take German politician Joschka
Fischer, who at the time of this writing was
leader of the Bundestag Greens. Because
Fischer is determined that the Greens will
influence national, not just ecological,
policy, he gave himself a crash course in
economics and began to speak out posi-
tively on foreign policy issues like sending
troops to Bosnia and European Monetary
Union. His aim is to lead the Greens into a
left-center coalition “with an independent
tence.” He may or may not succeed but
jokes that, “I stand on my head day and
night figuring out how I can become Chan-
cellor.”5 Given enough time and the right
breaks, some of these people will play key
roles in the sustainability transition. Ex-
pect to see growing numbers of them pop- Faced with growing
ping up on company boards before long. media skepticism
As we shift towards the sustainable and a degree of
business paradigm, we will see companies political backlesh,
like Freeport McMoRan and RTZ trying to environmentalists
develop strategic partnerships with indi- have been rethinking
vidual campaigners and with major cam- what they do and
paigning groups. Some will succeed in how they do it.
attracting powerful partners, some not. But
the terms and conditions of these partner-
ships will have changed profoundly. In the
old order, very few campaigning groups, or
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as
they are better known, were prepared to
work directly with industry. Some never
will, but longer term they will probably turn
out to be in the minority. What is different
today, however, is that the NGOs are increas-
ingly in a position of power-and some are
preparing to use it in novel ways, working
with business and through markets.
TRAPPING NGO FISTS
In the old order, the NGOs that decided
to work with business generally wanted
money and were considered to be sellouts
by radical activists. Whether the funding
was for core costs, campaigns, or other ini-
tiatives, the relationship was simple.
Crudely stated, it was “Give us money and
we will splash your name over some ap-
propriate surface.” A few leading NGOs,
particularly those dedicated to wildlife
conservation, developed huge corporate

Partnerships from Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom fine of2lst-Century Business ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY MANAGEMENT / Autumn 1998 / 39
 sponsorship departments dedicated solely
to hunting down deep-pocketed corporate
donors. And, like the monkey with its fist
in the trap, they too then tended to find
that they were in no position to run effec-
tive campaigns against their newfound
funding partners. Some companies even
offered funding with the explicit aim of
locking up potential enemies, or even of
using them as Trojan horses.
In any event, the conditions in which
such partnerships were pursued changed
dramatically when two things happened in
parallel. First, companies, inevitably, be-
came more discriminating. They began to
insist on a bigger PR bang for their spon-
sorship buck. And they wanted their ben-
efits in the form of an enhanced reputation
with selected audiences. As “cause-related
marketing” evolved, some of those NGO
corporate sponsorship departments be-
came almost indistinguishable from main-
stream advertising or PR agencies.
The second shift was driven by NGO
needs. They found themselves managing
increasingly large projects and budgets.
Their staffs mushroomed and demanded
better employment conditions. They found
they needed people, and project and finan-
cial management skills which, they noted,
business was also rich in. So we saw
downsizing corrtpanies seconding manag-
ers to NGOs, often as a way of easing them
into retirement. And we also saw NGOs
appointing people from business to their
boards and top management posts.
One pioneer has
In a parallel trend, we saw leading
been the U.S.
campaigners being recruited by major com-
Environmental
panies. Not all of these transfers worked.
Defense Fund (EDF),
More than a few secondees, and some of
which has worked
those actively headhunted, proved to be
with companies as
fish out of water. But enough of these grafts
diverse as
“took” to ensure that NGOs remain inter-
McDonalds and
ested in finding new ways to access the
General Motors.
human resources and skills available
within their business partners-and that
companies find ways to extract new forms
of value from campaigning organizations
or from ex-campaigners.
40 / Autumn 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTYMANAGEMENT
Greenfreeze and After
Now we are entering a new phase in
the evolution of business-NGO relations,
involving early strategic alliances between
companies and selected NGOs. In the pro-
cess, some NGOs are learning to punch
with the weight of multinational corpora-
tions, in part by learning to work alongside
and through corporations. An early ex-
ample was the string of “strange alliances”
that Greenpeace pioneered in its “Green-
freeze” campaign with companies like
DKK Scharfenstein and Calor.
The aim was to use Greenpeace’s mar-
keting and communication muscle to help
launch ozone-friendly technology, which
the prevailing refrigeration industry consen-
sus said was unworkable. The result was
that the plans of the Inultibillion-dollar re-
frigeration and chemical industries were
thrown into complete disarray.‘j What hap-
pens if and when Greenpeace starts to work
with the real heavyweights?
In the world of business, environmen-
tal performance is increasingly seen as a
competitive and strategic issue for compa-
nies. As a result, growing numbers are ex-
perimenting with novel forms of NGO rela-
tionship. In the world of NGOs, meanwhile,
the mid-1990s marked a critical crossroads,
with the environmental agenda opening out
into a much broader, and more demanding,
sustainable development agenda. As a re-
sult, more environmental NGOs are experi-
menting with partnership approaches to
environmental and sustainability problems.
One pioneer has been the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Defense Fund (EDF),which has
worked with companies as diverse as
McDonald’s and General Motors. Recently,
it formed the Alliance for Environmental
Innovation with the Pew Foundation-
and set u p a joint task force with S.C.
Johnson & Son, Inc., to work on the clean-
ing products company’s product formula-
tion and packaging processes. “People
have always expected products to be effec-
tive, while also being safe to use and dis-
pose [of],’’ explained Joseph Mallof, an SCJ
John Elkington
executive vice president:’
We believe that our products can of-
fer higher quality and value to people
if we integrate eco-efficiency as a fun-
damental part of the initial product
concept. This will enable us to use
more environmentally friendly mate-
rials, and fewer of them, which in
turn will reduce waste, risk and costs.
In the case of the EDF-S.C. Johnson
partnership, each partner has borne its
own costs, as did EDF in earlier projects
with other companies. But other NGOs
will be much less worried about accepting
the corporate dollar. Indeed, they will in-
creasingly need to do so to fund the grow-
ing scale of their operations. The ethical
debate on such issues is already fairly
heated and, on present evidence, the tem-
perature is likely to rise further.
Strange Attractor
So just how important are these trends?
Not just at the level of a company’s public
affairs department, but at the level of the
board? The board of British Petroleum (BP)
wanted to have answers and SustainAbility
was asked to investigate the growth of busi-
ness-NGO alliances worldwide, with a view
to helping the company develop an agenda
for actiomRRecently in the news because of
alleged misdemeanors in Colombia, BP has
a long track record of working productively
with NGOs. But the company’s board
wanted to know whether it should be think-
ing in terms of developing a strategic alli-
ance with one or more NGOs. And, if so,
with whom, how, and to do what?
To this end, we surveyed more than 60
environment and development NGOs and
20 companies worldwide, asking them to
assess the sincerity of corporate environ-
mentalism, the most important influences
on environmental performance, and the
elements which make for successful part-
nerships. We then analyzed the two groups
separately. Although we knew a conver-
Partnerships from Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom fine of 2lst-Century Business
gence process was already running, we all
found the results surprising.
Rather than illustrating the gulf to be
bridged, the survey showed a surprisingly
high degree of convergence. Despite what
some companies may believe, NGOs are
watching environmentally proactive compa-
nies with great interest, and most are heart-
ened by the upsurge in corporate environ-
mentalism. Interestingly, though, NGOs are
also acutely aware of the gap between
leaders and laggards in a given industry.
This knowledge is informing their selection
of potential partners. We then went on to in-
terview some 20 companies that had already
developed strategic alliances with NGOs,
among their number, companies as di-
verse as the Body Shop, General Motors,
McDonald’s, and Monsanto. Indeed, the
project unfolded against a background of
increasing collaboration between companies
and NGOs, among them WWF’s developing
link with IJnilever on “sustainable fisheries”
(Exhibit 2).
The inescapable conclusion is that as
the environmental agenda broadens to in-
corporate sustainability’s triple bottom
line, some NGOs are recognizing the key
role that business can, indeed must, play
in forging workable solutions. Increasingly,
stakeholder capitalism will be the name of
the game. Growing numbers of businesses
are seeking to move beyond confrontation
to forge more productive relationships
with NGOs. The convergence of these
trends creates a n opportunity for new
forms of partnership but raises an interest-
ing new issue. Many business people had
argued that there were too many NGOs for
comfort. If current trends continue, how-
ever, we may well see a shortage of cred-
ible NGOs willing and able to work along-
side, and invest their credibility i n ,
particular companies or industry sectors.
Thus, we concluded, companies that lead
their competitors in forging strategic alli-
ances with key NGOs could enjoy a strong
“first mover” benefit.
Nor is this just a European and North
ENVIRONMENTALQUAUTYMANAGEMENT / Autumn 1998 / 41
 Exhibit 2. Unilever, U.K./The Netherlands: Sustainable Fish Fingers

I As the world‘s largest fish buyer, the Anglo-Dutch giant Unilever is backing a plan developed by W W F to set up an
international labeling scheme for sustainable fish production. Unilever is the company behind such brands as Bird’s
I Eye and John West. When the scheme was announced in 1996, the plan was thatthe first labeled products would be
in the stores by 1998, with all of the company‘s fish products labelled by 2005.
The new standards, which will be policed by a new Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), will iocus on two main issues:
where the fish are caught and the methods used to catch them. Participating fisheries will be certified againstthe
MSC criteria and their packs will bearthe MSC logo. The project has been modeled on the Forest Stewardship Council
I (FSC), a similar program WWF set up in l993for the timber trade9 I
But what is perhaps most interesting about the scheme is that it reflects disillusion on the part of both WWF and
Unilever with government efforts to set and enforce catch quotas to control over-fishing. This is the first real attempt
I to offer a market-based approach. It remains to be seen, however, both whether the supermarkets and specialist fish ~

I stores will back the scheme, and whether consumers will switch in significant numbers to sustainable kippers and
fish fingers.
~ _ - _ _ .~ .~ -~
I
J

American phenomenon. Kespondents well managed, can fuel schizophrenia both

from around the world recognized the
trend. From southern Africa, Jon Hobbs (at
the time, executive director of the Indus-
trial Environmental Forum of Southern
Africa) observed:
It is interesting that these questions
should be raised at this time. A recent
series of interviews with our mem-
bers (mostly corporate executives)
revealed that their priority require-
ment from the [Indus- trial Environ-
mental Forum] is “guidelines” on
how to “better engage” NGOs.
Schizophrenia Guaranteed
More than 85 percent of our NGO re-
spondents believed that partnerships will
increase over the next five years, and that
NGOs should get involved in more com-
pany partnerships. Even so, confrontation
is expected to continue in parallel-and
several factors could reverse the trend to-
ward collaboration. In the United States,
for example, Speaker Newt Gingrich and
his Republicans managed to trigger a ma-
jor re-think among NGOs already working
with companies with their attempts to
undermine existing environmental regula-
tions. In the event, NGOs and their allies
fought off the challenge, but both they and
the companies they work with will need to
grapple with the internal “schizophrenia”
partnerships can create within their own
organizations. Partnerships, even when
in companies and NC;Os.
Of course, it is difficult to generalize
about NGOs, given that they are so diverse.
They concentrate on a wide array of envi-
ronmental (and often social and economic)
issues; span local, regional, national, and
international “jurisdictions”; represent
numerous forms of decision-making struc-
ture and management: and are driven by
widely different political philosophies.
Some NGOs are staffed by a handful of
people, relying largely on volunteer efforts,
while others are large, international, highly
professionalized organizations. These in-
herent differences in form, agenda, and
style also extend to their views on devel-
oping relationships with business, whether
in true partnerships or in dialogs. So before
entering into an alliance with an NGO, a
company would want to know where the
organization fits into the overall
sustainability movement.
To make the diversity easier to grasp,
we distinguish between four main types of
NGO, based on two separate sets of char-
acteristics. First, consider the extent to
which the NGO seeks to integrate the role
of businesses and “public interest” groups
in achieving environmental goals. At one
end of the spectrum, as Max Nicholson put
it a couple of decades ago, are the integra-
tors, placing a high priority on developing
productive relationships with business,
and striving to identify non-confronta-
tional, “win-win” strategies. At the other

42 / Autumn 1998 / ENVIRONMENTALOUALITY MANAGEMEM John Elkington

end of this spectrum are the polarizers.
They have typically made a strategic deci-
sion not to develop close working relation-
ships with business, preferring to concen-
trate instead on a watchdog role.
Second, consider whether the NGO
discriminates among companies within an
industry with respect to their real or per-
ceived environmental commitment and
performance. At one end of this spectrum,
we have the discriminators. For them, the
challenge is to understand the issues fac-
ing a particular industry and to track the
progress made by individual companies
compared to industry benchmarks. At the
other end of the spectrum, there are the
nondiscriminutors. For them, a company’s
relative environmental performance is not
of particular interest. Rather, the focus of
attention is typically the environmental
burden of the industry in general.
With these two dimensions in mind,
we use a four-celled matrix of NGO types
(Exhibit 3) showing “Sharks,” “Orcas,”
“Sea Lions,” and “Dolphins.” Most sane
people and organizations tend to avoid
sharks, although there are plenty of them
about in most industries. The infosphere,
in particular, is full of them: the media
Exhibit 3. Four Types of NGOs
r- ~~ __
I
Polarizer
I
I Discriminator Orca (killer whale)
highly intelligent, strategic
can adapt behavior, strategy to context
fearsome, uses fear to coerce
uncertain in behavior
likes deep water, can cover great distances
associates with own kind
eats sea lions (and, sometimes, dolphins)
, Non-discriminator Shark
relatively low intelligence
tactical
acutely responsive to distress
poor eyesight, peripheral vision of prey
nondiscriminating in terms of targets
swims, often attacks in packs
Source: SustainAbility
Partnerships from Cannibals with Forks: The 7@/e Boftom Line of2lsf-Century Business
thrive on bad news, so the natural selection
pressures working in favor of shark-like be-
havior are often intense. On the other
hand, the NGO type likely to be most in de-
mand, both with business and public sec-
tor organizations, is also among the rarest
to date: those pursuing what Brain Tech-
nologies Corp. has dubbed the “Strategy of
the Dolphin.”’” Our survey showed grow-
ing numbers of NGOs moving--or aspiring
to move-towards this top, right hand cell.
This is the “Strange Attractor” of our BP
report’s title.
The drivers pushing u s in this direc-
tion are summarized in Exhibit 4.The
re s u 1ti ng st r a n ge a 11i anc e s ” between
“
corporations and NGOs will demand ex-
traordinary vision and new political and
management skills from people who in
the past have found it much easier to
simply lob bricks at one another. They
are now being asked to build together. If
the approach works, they will need to
accept shared responsibility for both the
ends and the means. If they fail, as many
experiments do, we need to recognize
that even some failures should be cel-
ebrated if, in the process, we learn from
our mistakes.
-_ -~
1
Integrator
Dolphin
intelligent, creative, integrators
adapts behavior and strategies to context
can fend off sharks
equally comfortable in deep or shallow waters
. can cover great distances
can be a loner - or intensely social
empathy for other species
Sea Lion
moderate intelligence
tactical
popular spectacle
-friendly
menu item for sharks and orca
tends to stay in “safe waters”
believes in safety in numbers
uneasy if too far from group
.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTY MANAGEMENT / Autumn 1998 / 43
 Exhibit 4. Drivers of “Strange Alliances“
-_- ~ - ~ _ _ _ _ _
Company Perspective
markets are pushing us this way
NGOs are credible with public on, for example, issues, priorities
need for external challenge
cross-fertilization of thinking
greater efficiency in resource allocation
desire to head off negative public confrontations,
protect image and reputation
desire to engage stakeholders
Source: SustainAbility
WHAT’S NEW, GURUS?: A QUESTION OF
COMMITMENT
Interestingly, some far-sighted manage-
ment gurus have been flagging up similar
trends in other areas. Among the ideas they
are advancing are business ecosystems, co-
opetition, and stakeholder capitalism.
James Moore’s book The Death of Compe-
tition” introduced the notion of business
ecosystems. The challenge for companies
today is to work out how to integrate a
growing range of partners and stakehold-
ers into these ecosystems.
The advantages of this approach have
also been explored by Fred Reichheld in two
recent books: The Loyalty Effect and The
Questfor But as Reichheld himself
argues: “Loyalty seems to be dying in our
society. Look at the way we treat friendships,
community organizations, even marriage.
You would think we were renting cars or
motel rooms instead of making commit-
ments.” And, he points out, “it’snot just our
social lives that seem to be less permanent.
As the Financial Times pointed out recently,
business too seems to have entered the age
of the one-night stand.” The average IJ S .
company, he notes,
now loses half its customers in five
years, half its employees in four, and
half its investors in less than one.
Layoffs, stock-market churn, fickle
customers, executive job surfing-all
signs seem to point towards oppor-
tunism and disloyalty as the govern-
44 / Autumn 1998 / ENVIRONMENTALQUALITYMANAGEMENT
- __ _- _____ ~~~-
NGO Perspective
markets are interesting
disenchanted with government as provider of
solution
need for more resources, such as funding and
technical and management expertise
business is credible with, for example,
government
cross-fertilization of thinking
access to, for example, supply chains
greater leverage
ing principles in commerce as well as
in society.
Business leaders do not typically
see loyalty, whether with suppliers, cus-
tomers, or other stakeholders, as fashion-
able, lucrative, or even particularly rel-
evant. Their view is that “they have
more urgent problems to worry about-
for example, growth, productivity, and
profits.” No one disputes that these pri-
orities are indeed urgent, but the inter-
esting thing about Reichheld’s work is
that he argues that many of the indica-
tors of growth, productivity, and profit-
ability seem to signal that the wrong
approach is being used. As Reichheld
explains, “ignoring loyalty in order to
focus on these ‘more pressing’ problems
may be exactly the wrong fix.”
In short, he argues, what is dead is the
old form of unconditional loyalty. Fifty
years ago, he suggests,
loyalty played a much larger part in
everyday life than it does today. People
were deeply loyal to their families, of
course. But people also displayed un-
questioning loyalty to a long list of
civic, religious, and professional au-
thorities and even to the companies
they bought from and worked for.
As a result, in today’s world “very few
of us feel unconditional loyalty to anyone
or anything.” But don’t despair. Reichheld
John Elkington
concludes that unconditional, hierarchical
loyalty has simply been replaced, and not
with a vacuum. “Free markets have re-
placed it with something far superior-
mutual, earned loyalty; loyalty that works
in two directions.”
In the new order, it turns out, stake-
holders, whether they are customers, em-
ployees, or triple bottom line campaigners,
want to be (and to be treated as) partners.
In fact, the same “zero defection” targets
that Reichheld proposes for companies
wanting to be “loyalty leaders” can be
cross-applied to broader stakeholder rela-
tionships. Companies may not be able to
keep their customers, employees, or triple
bottom line stakeholders forever, but the
greater the mutual, earned respect and loy-
alty the greater is the chance that the orga-
nization will be sustainable.
Co-opetition
When Harry Nalebuff and Adam
Brandenburger chose “Business is War” as
the first phrase in their book Co-opetition,
their intent was to skewer this notion.I3
They accept that the traditional language
of business certainly makes it sound as
though business is war: “outsmarting the
competition, capturing market share, mak-
ing a killing, fighting brands, beating up
suppliers, locking up customers. Under
business-as-war, there are the victors and
the vanquished.” But anyone involved in
business today knows that often it just isn’t
like that. “You have to listen to customers,
work with suppliers, creato teams, estab-
lish strategic partnerships-even with
competitors. That doesn’t sound like war.”
As they explain, the real business
world often involves cooperation when
creating a pie and competition when i t
comes to dividing it up. It’s not Tolstoy,
with endless cycles of war followed by
peace followed by war. “It’s simulta-
neously war and peace.” Or as Novel1
founder Ray Noorda put it: ‘you have to
compete anti cooperate at the same time.”
Nalebuff and Brandenburger then use
Partnerships from Cannibals with forks. The Trple Bottom Line ofZlst-Century Business
game theory to work out ways of avoiding
“lose-lose” and “lose-win” outcomes,
where everyone loses or you set up the pie
in such a way that only other people win,
and instead pursue “win-win” outcomes.
There is no reason at all why the same
principles cannot be pursued in relation to
the “win-win-win” outcomes required by
sustainability’s triple bottom line.
So if business is viewed as a game,
who should we include as key players?
The answer is customers, suppliers, com-
petitors, and complementors-those who
provide complementary products, services, In the new order, it
or other inputs. “Thinking complements is turns out,
a different way of thinking about business,”
stakeholders,
Nalebuff and Brandenburger contend: whether they are
customers,
It’s about finding ways to make the employees, or triple
pie bigger rather than fighting with bottom line
competitors over a fixed pie. To ben-
campaigners, want to
efit from this insight, think about how
be (and to be treated
to expand the pie by developing new as) partners.
complements or making existing
complements more affordable.
Co-opetition offers a number of rules
for companies and stakeholders choosing
to travel this path. Simply stated, they are
as follows:
Every player should be aware of tho
potential added value they bring to tht:
game. How will the game be different
if you are in rather than out?
There needs to be at least a basic set of
rules. Often, to build trust, these rules
need to be spelled out and agreed early
on.
Perceptions need to be taken into ac-
count: different people view the world
differently. The way we see the game,
and the way we think others see the
game, influences the moves we make.
There need to be boundaries: a game
without boundaries gctts too complex
to analyze or play. Players need to
agree on what those boundaries are or
should be.
ENVIRONMENTALQUALITYMANAGEMENT / Autumn 1998 / 45
 Attention needs to be paid to different
types of rationality and irrationality. In
any game, different players can be per-
fectly rational but, seeing the value
added, rules, and boundaries in differ-
ent ways, end up playing in very dif-
ferent ways.
In sustainability partnerships, as in all
other walks of life, dismissing actual or
pot.entia1players as “irrational” closes the
mind. It makes much more sense to expand
the mind by trying to work out how others
see the world, the game, and its rules. “To
us,” say Nalebuff and Brandenburger,
the issue of whether people are ratio-
nal or irrational is largely beside the
point. More important is remember-
ing to look at a game from multiple
perspectives-your own and that of
every other player. This simple-
sounding idea is possibly the most
profound insight of game theory.
It is also one of the simplest, yet most
effective ingredients in the expanded
stakeholder approach to capitalism.
Trust
Every now and then you come across
In conventional a book that you can feel changing your
business terms, trust thinking as you turn each and every page.
cuts the costs and Francis Fukuyama’s T r ~ s t , ’which
~ I read
delays involved in on a flight to South Africa, had this effect
project development on me. Best known for his 1992 best-seller
and other processes. T h e End of History and the Last Man,
Fukuyama (formerly deputy secretary of
the U.S. State Department’s policy plan-
ning staff, then a Rand Corporation ana-
lyst) subsequently turned his attention to
an area likely to be central to the sus-
tainable development agenda: trust-and
what he describes as “social capital.”
With capitalism increasingly in the
ascendant around the world, The End of
History argued that different countries
were coming to share increasingly similar
political and economic institutions. Now
46 / Autumn 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYMANAGEMENT
that the Cold War is considered to be over,
Trust concludes that the most important
issue facing Europe, the United States and
other industrial democracies is economic
competitiveness. And here Fukuyama of-
fers a chilling conclusion: the tendency of
countries like the United States and Great
Britain towards individualism will under-
mine their economies. By contrast, he ar-
gues, the success of the rapidly growing
economies of East Asia is rooted in often
overlooked forms of social capital, such as
trust, sense of community, and social inte-
grat ion.
Fukuyama is hardly alone in making
this case: The Economist pointed out that
“hardly an issue of the Iiarvard Business
Review or the California Management Re-
view appears without the word ‘trust’embla-
zoned on the cover.” One key reason for this
is that many current trends in management,
among them downsizing, reengineering. and
the culling of middle managers, are forcing
companies to place more responsibility on,
and faith in, their front-line employees.
Now, growing numbers of companies are
finding that this internal need for trust is
mirrored in the external world. Just as they
need to work much more closely with
smaller numbers of trusted suppliers, so
they also feel the need to involve a growing
range of external stakeholders, including
sustainability campaigners, in setting their
business priorities.
In conventional business terms, trust
cuts the costs and delays involved in
project development and other processes.
It can help to secure a licence to operate.
But as environmental, and other triple
bottom line factors increasingly shape
markets, the growth of trust between indi-
vidual companies and their stakeholders
will also help hone competitive edge and
provide an important source of new busi-
ness ideas. But companies investing in
trust will still need to cultivate a degree of
paranoia (in the sense in which Intel’s
Andy Grove uses the word) and schizo-
phrenia (as discussed above).
John Elkington
BOARDROOM VIEWS: DAMN IT, THIS IS
IMPORTANT
Most company directors are fairly com-
fortable with the idea of commercial partner-
ships and many accept the need for social
and community partnerships. But environ-
mental and sustainability part-neringis still
way down the curve. Environmentalists, in
particular, are often seen as a form of virus
which should be kept as far away as possible
from the vital organs of a company or indus-
try. That view will change.
A small but growing number of CEOs
and other business leaders are waking up
to the need to involve even some of their
fiercest critics in the process of deciding
what their companies should do next. Lis-
ten to Monsanto CEO Bob Shapiro:
We have to reduce-and ultimately
eliminate -the negative impacts we
have on the world. But even if
Monsanto reached its goal of zero
impact next Tuesday, that wouldn’t
solve the world’s problems. Several
years ago, I sensed that there was
something more required of us than
doing no harm, but I couldn’t articu-
late what it was.” l5
So Shapiro pulled together a group of
about 25 critical thinkers, including some
of the company’s up-and-coming leaders,
and sent them off to ponder the issues with
a number of nontraditional thinkers, in-
cluding Paul Hawken, from the outside
world. In short, this was a very focused
form of partnership. “That off-site meeting
in 1994 led to an emerging insight that we
couldn’t ignore the changing global envi-
ronmental conditions,” recalls Shapiro:
The focus around sustainable devel-
opment became obvious. I should
have been able to come up with that
in about 1 5 minutes. But it took a
group of very good people quite a
while to think it through, to deter-
mine what was real and what was just
Partnerships from Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line ofZlst-Century Business
puff, and to convince themselves that
this wasn’t a fluffy issue-and that
we ought to be engaged in it.
The Monsanto people came away
“emotionally fired up,” says Shapiro. “It
wasn’t just a matter of ‘Okay,you threw me
an interesting business problem, I have
done the analysis, here is the answer, and
now can I go back to work.’ People came
away saying, ‘Damn it, we’ve got to get
going on this. This is important.’ ”
Experience suggests that such out-
comes are much more likely when compa-
nies bring the outside world in. Indeed,
wherever we look, business is learning to Indeed, wherever we
listen to and consult with new types of look, business is
stakeholders. As Cor Herkstroter of Shell learning to listen to
put it in the wake of the Brent Spar and and consult with
Nigerian controversies, new types of
stakeholders.
Naturally we have listened very
closely to our customers. We have lis-
tened very carefully to government
and to our staff. They, after all, were
the institutions, the bodies, we had
always dealt with. Of course, we also
dealt with environmentalist groups,
consumer groups and so on, but we
tended to let the public affairs depart-
ment deal with them. They were im-
portant-but they were not as impor-
tant as government, industry
organizations and so on.16
That, at least, was the prevailing wis-
dom, but these controversies signalled an
important shift in triple bottom line poli-
tics. “In essence,” Herkstroter admits, “we
were somewhat slow in understanding that
these groups were tending to acquire au-
thority. Meanwhile, those institutions we
were used to dealing with were tending to
lose authority. We underestimated the ex-
tent of these changes-we failed to engage
in a serious dialogue with these new
groups.” The key message: “We learnt we
had to be much more open to the world
around us.” l 7
ENVIRONMENTALQUALITYMANAGEMENT / Autumn 1998 / 47
 BUBBLING UNDER: GOING DUTCH
Sustainability partnerships can be initi-
ated-and led-by government agencies,
Sustainability companies, NGOs, or other stakeholders.
partnerships can be One government-led partnership approach
initiated-and led- which certainly ought to spread is based on
by government “covenants,” or voluntary environmental
agencies, companies, agreements between business and govern-
NGOs, or other ment. Indeed, although the idea may be dif-
stakeholders. ficult to export in its entirety, it has attracted
interest from a number of other countries
including Germany and Italy in Europe and,
in the Americas, Argentina and the United
States.I8Rooted in the Dutch political and
business tradition of consensus and consul-
tation, the approach also benefits from the
fact that Dutch companies tend to belong to
one or more sectoral organizations-making
it easier to negotiate sector-wide agreements
with government.
Since the first experiments of the
198Os, more than 75 environmental cov-
enants have been signed. These have com-
mitted a wide range of sectors to meeting
targets in such areas as energy efficiency,
greenhouse gas reduction, and the control
of volatile organic compounds. So, for ex-
ample, some 150 companies operating in
the surface treatment sector signed up to an
energy efficiency covenant with the eco-
nomic affairs ministry which aimed for a
20 percent improvement between 1989
and 2000. And the approach, despite some
NGO criticisms, appears to be making
headway. When the chemicals covenant
was reviewed, it turned out that 107 out of
125 companies committed to the agree-
ment had already installed the manage-
ment systems needed to monitor progress.
The main criticisms have been that the
covenants do not go far enough and, because
they tend to be based on intimate discus-
sions between government and a particular
sector, they are not as democratic as the tra-
ditional legislative processes. But there are
also real advantages. As KPMG partner
George Molenkamp put it,
From the government’s point of view,
48 / Autumn 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYMANAGEMENT
the covenant creates a wider base of
support from within industry. If the
government tried to reach the same
goals through legislation, it would be
time-consuming and not necessarily
very effective. Through voluntary
agreement it is possible to do difficult
things that could not easily be laid
down in law.
This approach, it hardly needs saying,
is not applicable to all problems and all
circumstances. To work, it not only re-
quires sectoral bodies with the ability to
negotiate agreements with governments,
but also governments where the funda-
mental policies and targets are not changed
with every new administration. Above all,
voluntary agreements will always require
the pre-existence of a reasonably compre-
hensive and sophisticated framework of
legislation, to ensure that any “free-riders”
are identified and dealt with.
Eco-Infrastructure
One emerging recognition is that, how-
ever much a single company may be able
to do on the eco-efficiency front, in the end
sustainability will depend on the progress
of entire concentrations of industry, com-
plete value chains, and whole economies.
As a result, we see growing interest in the
provision of eco-infrastructure, as for ex-
ample in the concept of the eco-industrial
park (EIP). The central idea here is that by
sharing resources, whether in the form of
efficient energy production or of state of-
the-art waste management, companies can
significantly boost the overall eco-effi-
ciency of a local or regional economy.
“We see eco-parks as a community of
companies working together to improve
individual and group performance in all
environmental areas,” explained the 1J.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
There is a large menu of options for
doing this, including energy efficiency
in building and process design, inno-
John Elkington
 vations in park infrastructure, created
wetlands to process stormwater, and
shared environmental management
services. Most of these options trans-
late into bottom line benefits to the
companies.
Of course, as Tomorrow‘s U S . editor,
Carl Frankel, put it,
There are many unknowns to con-
tend with, Example: sooner or later a
critical player in a multi-company
waste recycling system will re-locate
or go bankrupt. When that occurs,
how do you keep the entire system
from collapsing? More immediately,
how do you reassure potential EIP
participants that there isn’t a fatal
design flaw? Another problem in-
volves the difficulty of quantifying
the economic and environmental
benefits of EIPs for candidate compa-
nies. The bottom line is that full-scale
EIPs are still essentially untested.
For participating companies, it also
potentially adds one more level of uncer-
tainty, particularly if they come to depend
on the outputs of others nearby.
In The Netherlands, meanwhile, there
are plans for developing an “Environmen-
tal Technology Valley,” based on the Sili-
con Valley model and including at least
one business park catering to up-and-com-
ing eco-companies. And a series of pro-
posed schemes have been surfacing across
the United States. The President’s Council
on Sustainable Development strongly
backed EIPs and anyone wanting to keep
a finger on the EIP pulse should keep an
eye on Chattanooga, Tennessee. Since the
late 1980s, according to councillor David
Crockett (a descendant of the legendary
pioneer), the city has aimed to be a “living
laboratory” for sustainability policies,
technologies, and design. Four EIPS are in
the works, a couple on old “brownfield”
industrial sites, one on a “green field” site
Partnerships from Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of Zlst-Century Business
in a pristine valley on the edge of town,
and one-which is planned to have zero
emission manufacturing facilities-in the
south central business district. Such
schemes will depend for their success on
long-sighted regulators, communities, and
companies, but they certainly look like an
idea whose time is coming.
Industrial Ecology
Nor are these eco-industrial parks de-
veloping in a vacuum. Behind them stands Nor are these eco-
a rapidly-evolving field of research and industrial parks
practice known as “industrial ecology.” developing in a
Whether the focus is on designing and vacuum,
operating cities, ElPs, or individual com-
panies, the idea is “based upon a straight-
forward analogy with natural ecological
systems,” as Robert Frosch put it, “where
nothing that contains available energy or
useful materials is
But evidence that the approach does
work can be seen every day of the working
week around the “industrial symbiosis” in
Kalundborg, Denmark. The scale of the
environmental benefits has been consider-
able. By 1995, $60 million had been in-
vested by the participating companies and
organizations to launch 16 materials and
energy exchange schemes, which were al-
ready producing $10 million a year in sur-
plus.2oAlthough none of the cooperative
initiatives had been required by legisla-
tion, annual oil consumption had been cut
by 45,000 tonnes, coal consumption by
15,000 tonnes, and water consumption by
600,000 cubic meters. In addition, carbon
dioxide and sulfur dioxide emissions had
been cut, respectively, by 175,000 tonnes
and 10,200 tonnes a year.
It is no surprise that ecosystems think-
ing is now coming into management con-
sulting: as any ecologist knows, the output
of one organism becomes input for others,
and organisms may both compete and co-
operate. Among the names of interesting
thinkers that have popped up in the area
of industrial ecology and metabolism are
Brad Allenby, Bob Ayres, and Hardin
ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY MANAGEMENT / Autumn 1998 / 49
 Tibbs, but the field is now wide open for
its own version of such entrepreneurs as
Steve Jobs or Richard Branson to get it on
the road commercially.
WINNERS, LOSERS: ARE you IN OR OUT?
Winners, whether they are companies
or national or regional economies, will
learn how to earn the loyalty of their key
stakeholders (Exhibit 5). Success in these
areas will help considerably with such
challenges as building employee morale
and generating new business ideas. Com-
panies with active, extended webs of part-
ners will be much better prepared for
emerging trends, their antennae scanning
horizons well beyond the reach of many of
their competitors.
Note that the rules of partnership will
change as the partnerships evolve. The
Management Institute for Environment
and Business (MEB)has reviewed the evo-
lution of environmental partnerships in
the United States, and defines four differ-
ent types of partnership. These are: pre-
emptive or resolution partnerships, which
are designed to defuse an already or poten-
tially hostile situation; coalescing partner-
ships, in which rivals join forces to accom-
plish their goals; exploration partner-
ships, based on opportunistic attempts to
research or investigate issues of joint con-
cern; and leverage partnerships, whose aim
is to find win-win (or win-win-win) oppor-
tunities that will allow each party to make
modest investments in return for relatively
high gains.21The rules of the game will
clearly vary depending on the style of part-
nership adopted.
Most companies developing advanced
eco-efficiency and sustainability manage-
ment tools recognize that they need a mul-
tiplicity of inputs to the relevant processes
if they are to provide robust sugges tions for
future product development and marketing.
But they also need to recognize that adopt-
ing the right tools and developing the rel-
evant management systems are only part of
the challenge. If they need to build public
credibility and stakeholder engagement,and
most companies do, they need to build
wider partnerships-so that their stakehold-
ers share a sense of ownership in the ap-
proaches adopted. Given that different part-
ners will bring different rationalities to the
table, however, learning how to sustain
these partnerships will be a tough challenge.
One outside possibility is that the unions-
increasingly marginalized during much of
the 1980s and 1990s+:ould find a new role
as far-sighted brokers in relation to triple
bottom line resources and performance.
The losers, often, will be those left out
of the really significant sustainability part-

Exhibit 5. Nortel, Canada: Shared Savings

Suppliers usually do best when they maximize their sales to customers. Often, however, the result is that both the
customer and the environment turn out to be losers. Now the telecommunications company Nortel is testing the
!
\
"shared savings" approach to chemicals use reduction in Canada and waste minimization in Britain?* The company,
which is active in some 90 countries, employs more than 60,000 people, and had a turnover of $10.7 billion in 1995,
launched a Product Life Cycle Management program in 1992 designed to root out inefficiencies.
Partnerships with suppliers are seen to be fundamental to both commercial and environmental success. Nortel's
shared savings approach focuses on the relationship between supplier and customer. This is structured so as to
i
I
provide both with financial incentives to improve their environmental performance, for example by curbing resource
consumption and waste generation. The new approach is badly needed: recent trends in Nortel's resource efficiency
I
had been moving in the wrong direction.
In 1993, the company disposed of 8,851 tons of solid waste to landfill in the British Isles. Its target has been to cut
this figure by 50 percent by 2000, but by 1996 landfill disposals had jumped by 80 percent to 15,892 tonnes. Part of the
problem had been better reporting, but the pressure is now on to cut waste arisings dramatically. Interestingly,
however, the company found it hard to find suppliers able to meet its new needs. The waste industry proved to have
little experience of shared savings contracts, but as growing numbers of customer companies move in this direction,
suppliers and contractors will have no option but to work out new ways of partnering with customers to boost
efficiency-both in cost and environmental terms.
i

50 / Autumn 1998 / ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY MANAGEMENT John Elkington

nerships. Sometimes this will be a result
of the company's perceived failures in the
past, sometimes it may itself be a cause of
subsequent business failure. But one thing
can be guaranteed: no company, industrial
sector, or national economy will succeed
in defining and meeting its triple bottom
line responsibilities and targets without
developing much more extensive stake-
holder relationships and partnerships
than would have been the case even in the
recent past.
THREE KEYS TO THE 21ST CENTURY
The fifth sustainability revolution fo-
cuses on partnerships, requiring that we
understand and use the following keys to
sustainable enterprise:
The role of complementors arid of part-
nerships will be crucially important
both in the development of the global
sustainability agenda and of the triple
bottom line strategies of particular
companies and entire industry sectors.
More and more, companies and NGOs
will be drawn towards government-
industry-NGO symbioses.
Earned loyalty is the wave of the future.
Companies must be prepared to be chal-
lenged in depth by potential and current
complementors and partners. These
challenges will be a key part of the value
of such relationships. And the choice of
partners, as in every other area of human
life, will be critical.
Building trust represents one of the
most vital investments we can make in
social capital creation. Remember,
however, that poorly constructed rela-
tionships may well turn into "monkey
traps," constraining the ability of one
or more partners to do the things they
are in business to do-and undermin-
ing trust.
John Elkington is chairman of strategy consultants SustainAbility and the author of global bestsellers The Green
Consumer Guide and The Green Capitalists.
Partnerships from Cannibals with Forks. The Fiiple Bottom line ofZlst-Century Business
NOTES
1. David Watts, "Kidnappings Help to Undermine Gold- Dig-
gers from the West," The Times, May 17,1996.
2. Marieke Favrod, "Monkey Trap," Adbusters, Spring 1996.
3. Tom Patey, "Graduates Focus on Green Issues and Multi-
nationals," European, May 16,1996. The European Gradu-
ate Survey 1996 is available from Universum, Box 7053,
103 86 Stockholm, Sweden, or call t46 8 679 48 00.
4. Jonathan Adler, Environmentalism at the Crossroads:
Green Activism in America, Washington, D.C.: Capital Re-
search Center, 1996.
5. "10 [Germans] Who Make a Difference," Time, Septem-
ber 30,1996.
6. Ed Ayres and Hilary French, "The Refrigerator Revolution."
World Watch, SeptemberlOctober 1996.
7. Martin Wright, "Task Force First," Tomorrow.
8. John Elkington and Shelly Fennell, "Shark, Sea Lion or Dol-
phin?," Tomorrow, March-April 1997.
9. "Unilever and WWF Lay Path to 'Sustainable Fish' Logo,"
ENDSReportZN, March 1996.
10 Dudley Lynch and Paul L Kordis, Strategyofthe Dolphin:
Winning Elegantly by Coping Powerfully in a World of Tur-
bulent Change, U.K.: Arrow Books,1990.
11. James Moore, The Death of Competition, New York:
Harperbusiness, 1997.
12. Frederick F. Reichheld, The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden
Forces Behind Growth, Profits and Lasting Value, Boston,
Mass.: Harvard Business School Press, 1996. Frederick F.
Reichheld, The Quest for Loyalty: Creating Value through
Partnership, Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School
Press, 1996.
13. Barry J. Nalebuff and Adam M. Brandenburger, Co-
opetition, New York: HarperCollins, 1996.
14. Francis Fukuyama, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Cre-
ation of Prosperity, New York: Hamish Hamilton (Viking
Penguin), 1995.
15. Joan Magretta, "Growth through Global Sustainability: An
Interview with Monsanto's CEO, Robert B. Shapiro,"
Harvard Business Review, January-February 1997.
16. C. A. J. Herkstroter, Dealing with Contradictory Expecta-
tions: The Dilemmas Facing Multinationals, Octoberll,
1996, Amsterdam.
17. Andrew Lorenz, "Streamlined Shell Powers Head," Fi-
nancial Times, May 26,1996.
18. Ronald van de Krol, "Partners in Grime," Financial k e s ,
May 1,1996.
19. Robert A. Frosch, "Industrial Ecology: A Philosophical In-
troduction," Proceedings ofthe National AcademyofSci-
ence 89February 19921, pp. 800-803.
20. Panagiotis Karamanos, "Industrial Ecology: New Oppor-
tunities for the Private Sector," lndustry andEnvironment
1814). United Nations Environment Programme, October-
December 1495.
21. Matthew Arnold and Dirk Long, The PowerofEnvironmen-
talfaflnerships, Fort Worth,Texas:The Dryden Press, 1994.
22. "Nortel: Shared Savingsfor Chemicals and Waste Reduc-
tion,'' ENDSReport267, April 1997.
~~ ~
ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY MANAGEMENT / Autumn 1998 / 51